(Bigstock photo)
A guideline from India’s National Blood Transfusion Council and the National AIDS Control Organization under the Health and Family Welfare Ministry permanently prohibits men who have sex with men from donating blood. This prohibition, however, may change with the Supreme Court reviewing a challenge to the constitutionality to the 2017 blood donor rule.
The Supreme Court on July 30 agreed to hear the challenge that a gay man from Delhi — Shariff D. Rangnekar, director of the Rainbow Literature Festival — brought. Lawyer Rohin Bhatt drafted the complaint and Ibad Mushtaq filed it.
The rule also applies to transgender people, female sex workers, and LGBTQ people.
Rangnekar pointed out these rules were rooted in a highly prejudicial and outdated perspective from the 1980s in the U.S.
He noted many countries, including the U.S., UK, Canada, and Israel, have since revisited their guidelines, adopting new policies that no longer impose blanket bans on gay men or genderqueer people from donating blood.
“It is presumed that a particular group of persons may be suffering from sexually transmitted disease,” said Rangnekar in his lawsuit, according to the New Indian Express, a major English newspaper in India. “Medical technology and education, especially in the field of hematology, has progressed tremendously. The screening of donors is conducted for every donation before a transfusion.”
Rangnekar urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the blanket prohibition, arguing such a sweeping ban is unreasonable. He asserted this prohibition violates fundamental rights, including equality, dignity, and life, safeguarded under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Rangnekar further argues the ban effectively denies LGBTQ people full participation in society, relegating them to the status of second-class citizens.
He contends that clauses 12 and 51 of the 2017 blood donor guidelines are both discriminatory and unconstitutional, because they permanently exclude LGBTQ people from donating blood. Rangnekar argues these provisions unfairly single out LGBTQ persons, barring them from contributing to a life-saving cause, and thus, violates their fundamental rights. Rangnekar also emphasized that such exclusion perpetuates stigma and reinforces inequality, contradicting the principles of justice and equality the constitution enshrines.
The Supreme Court on Aug. 2 took a significant step by issuing a formal notice to the Indian government regarding Rangnekar’s case.
Led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, the three-judge bench sought responses from the National AIDS Control Organization and the National Blood Transfusion Council. This move marked the court’s recognition of the serious constitutional issues raised in the petition, setting the stage for a critical review of the rules that have long excluded LGBTQ people from donating blood.
The Union Health Ministry in 2023 responded to a Supreme Court petition that Thangjam Santa Singh filed, which challenged the 2017 blood donor selection criteria. Singh sought the removal of provisions that barred trans people, MSM, and female sex workers from donating blood.
The Union Health Ministry at the time defended the exclusionary clauses in the Supreme Court, stating they are based on substantial evidence that demonstrates trans people, MSM, and female sex workers are at increased risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. The ministry argued these guidelines were designed to protect the safety of the blood supply, though this stance has faced significant criticism for perpetuating stigma and discrimination against marginalized communities.
Rangnekar during an interview with the Washington Blade said India’s blood donation ban reflects a complete bias against the LGBTQ community. He emphasized this pattern of exclusion is not just about blood donation, but is part of a broader effort to deny the community basic rights and dignity.
“There are many groups that could be high risk in certain areas, but you have a deterrence system in place,” said Rangnekar. “Globally, India claims to be a superpower, It is a country that has sold medical tourism to many parts of the world, and it is a hub for people coming from the developing world to have medical treatment, so what stops the government from having a testing system in place to allow us blood donation, but to have a blanket ban is absolute bias and nothing less than rubbish. We are in a country where there is a shortage of blood.”
Rangnekar also expressed optimism about his case.
Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at mohitk@opiniondaily.news. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
The National LGBT Media Association represents 13 legacy publications in major markets across the country with a collective readership of more than 400K in print and more than 1 million + online. Learn more here: NationalLGBTMediaAssociation.com.
